Canon R5 Announced with 8k

[dc4040]

Interesting thread ... to me.

I was trained and worked as a Cardiac Anesthesiologist for 34 years ... most weeks working 80 hours ... on call for 25 days per month and
routinely in the hospital at 3AM ... after a 12 hour day ... to care for critically ill patients.

Retired not from the workload but from the restrictions and politics ... Obama Care ... which put my patients at risk. No legal protection for
the outcomes which were defined by the middle managers in the health care system.

A starting Anesthesiologist makes more than Roger ... but has no business that over time will generate income ... and no equity in the business.

Take a day off ... go on vacation ... donate your time in Medical relief missions ... all pro-bono without any return.

So good for Roger ... like so many of the skilled physicians I spent my career and life with ... their interests and expertise was much broader than
medicine ...

It is a bit of a stretch to expose an individual's net worth ... income ... personal holdings ... when you are essentially discussing his business.

Roger's expertise in optics ... his transparent elucidation of the limits, defects and strengths of equipment has been a breath of fresh air and
knowledge for those of us who have limited time and connections to make decisions that will define our craft and businesses for years.

It gives me great pleasure to know that like many in the medical fields ... Roger pursued his passion ... to the benefit of many.

Just sayin' ....

 

[Run&Gun]

Not so sure about that.

Rental equipment is really tight.

My last big shoot, had something like a 95% discount. On a long job there's often a built in discount right off the top because they do 3 day weeks (pay 3 days for 7 days rental) and THEN you put on 95% discount on top of that.

Rental companies have to have a huge depth of inventory, usually need enough backups for when things go down and carry overheads for service for the idiots that think "it's a rental don't be gentle" that I still see being carried out.

The only way they can typically claw something back is to charge full price for any dailies and additional items, but PM's are starting to get the discount locked in across the board....

Rentals are ruthless, and is another reason I like to be gear-switzerland and try not to own any gear....

So maybe yeah as an overall number they do, but they have ato carry a huge inventory and risk...

JB

Dumbest F'n business model EVER. I did the math on a show someone used for an example one time with the discount they were getting and gear being used and I don't know how the rental house paid for the equipment to buy it in the first place with the discount and amount of time it was being tied up.

 

[John Brawley]

Dumbest F'n business model EVER. I did the math on a show someone used for an example one time with the discount they were getting and gear being used and I don't know how the rental house paid for the equipment to buy it in the first place with the discount and amount of time it was being tied up.

My first job was working in a rental company. They were a large Australian company that competed with a large multinational for work. If the multinational wanted a job for strategic reasons, they would just lowball it till they got it. In the words of my boss at the time...

"They can afford to loose money for longer than I can"

JB

 

[Run&Gun]

Interesting thread ... to me.

I was trained and worked as a Cardiac Anesthesiologist for 34 years ... most weeks working 80 hours ... on call for 25 days per month and
routinely in the hospital at 3AM ... after a 12 hour day ... to care for critically ill patients.

Retired not from the workload but from the restrictions and politics ... Obama Care ... which put my patients at risk. No legal protection for
the outcomes which were defined by the middle managers in the health care system.

A starting Anesthesiologist makes more than Roger ... but has no business that over time will generate income ... and no equity in the business.

Take a day off ... go on vacation ... donate your time in Medical relief missions ... all pro-bono without any return.

So good for Roger ... like so many of the skilled physicians I spent my career and life with ... their interests and expertise was much broader than
medicine ...

It is a bit of a stretch to expose an individual's net worth ... income ... personal holdings ... when you are essentially discussing his business.

Roger's expertise in optics ... his transparent elucidation of the limits, defects and strengths of equipment has been a breath of fresh air and
knowledge for those of us who have limited time and connections to make decisions that will define our craft and businesses for years.

It gives me great pleasure to know that like many in the medical fields ... Roger pursued his passion ... to the benefit of many.

Just sayin' ....

I really like reading his articles and write-ups. Very interesting and smart guy.

 

[Run&Gun]

My first job was working in a rental company. They were a large Australian company that competed with a large multinational for work. If the multinational wanted a job for strategic reasons, they would just lowball it till they got it. In the words of my boss at the time...

"They can afford to loose money for longer than I can"

JB

In the same vein as the 'ole saying in racing, "Best way to make a million dollars in racing is to start with two".

 

[dc4040]

And it looks like he has built a company the will benefit his children ... if they maintain his sense of
commitment and passion.

Nice to pass on such a legacy.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

I know of lensrentals. They are aimed at still photographers who don't don't really have an equivalent to Panavision. I doubt they rent very much to anyone operating at a serious level of production. No real production would rent a camera that you can't prep properly in-house.

He's also made a great deal of inroads in doing specialised optical testing, which few others do. He's a unique individual.

I don't think they count really.



I just spent most of the last three years working in Atlanta....Was there last week and was the first "job" back in Keslow since lockdown.

Panavision, Keslow, VER and Otto Nemenz are all way ahead of PC&E in ATL who are more known for G&E than camera as far as I understand.

I've heard of them, but as far as I know we didn't even get quotes from them. I don't think they're as big as you think they are.

I'm not sure where we're going with this, but rentals is a cut-throat business and it takes a lot of capital and you're generally running on very tight margins.

JB

LensRentals also has a huge market in video production rental. I know many video people who rent from them. They have some high end equipment such as the Alexa Mini, Amira, Sony Venice, Arri Master Anamorphics, Zeiss Supreme Primes, but do not have the full range of high end equipment covered and have more coverage as far as gear geared towards the mid-range and low end (CN-e primes, C300s, FS7s, L-series lenses, 5Ds, etc.). Yeah, I would not imagine many or any high end film productions use them, but many high end commercial, corporate, lower budget movies, etc., do use them. And seeing as how they're nationwide and bringing in 13 million in revenue each year, I would imagine they are making way more money than most local only rental houses which don't even own 13 million in equipment. Unlike most local rental houses, LensRentals has a significantly larger stock of duplicates and I would not be surprised if they owned over 30 million of equipment. And you're trying to say that this guy who owns 30 million dollars of assets is a small time fish who makes less money than an average DP at $60k per year?

PC&E has more high end equipment than LensRentals, again, several Arri bodies, 35mm Film Cameras, Leica Summilux-C set, Master Primes, Ultra Primes, Cooke S4s, Master Anamorphics, etc. You can see their product catalog here: https://pce-atlanta.com/pdf/Camera Catalog_4_8_2013.pdf

I'd already stated that PC&E caters more to corporate and commercial which apparently is not as much your line of work. Based on what you're saying, companies like PC&E which cater to corporate, commercial, event, etc., do not need to offer these 95% off rates that the companies which cater to big budget Hollywood productions have become accustomed to doing. So from the sounds of it, these companies catering to smaller productions may actually be more profitable. At the end of the day, profits always speak, so even these companies you're saying offer 95% off, clearly must have found a way to make that profitable otherwise they'd all be out of business.

One of the big differences between TV shows and feature films, and corporate and doc, is that the first tend to be multiple month shoots, while the latter tend to be one or two day shoots. So it makes more sense that a multi-month rental can offer much bigger discounts than a place that thrives on one or two day rentals. One of my friends rented out his $20k Red package for $150 per day, which sounds ludicrously low, but ultimately, he was getting it on feature films with many shoot days and after 133 days of renting, it became pure profit. Everyone one has their business models, so if one can profit enough with low rates, then profit is profit however you see it.

And going back to my only original point, I imagine both the owner of PC&E, LensRentals, and the big production rental houses offering 95% off, are all making significantly more than the $60k per year that the average DP makes, on top of the vast assets they're accumulating over the course of time which can be stockpiled into a large retirement fund (or continued income if they hand off the company while retaining a percentage of the profits).




In any case, I fail to see how owning equipment makes a DP poorer if the DP is getting more rental income from the equipment than they paid for it. As an example, if a DP makes $150k per year in labor, plus $100k in equipment rental, while spending $50k per year in equipment, then they're making an additional $50k per year thanks to renting equipment. Assuming they're not constantly pushing their own inferior equipment (or in other words, their equipment is creme of the crop) on to shoots and upsetting producers by doing so, they're not losing any labor money by having equipment and are increasing their profits.

Perhaps you could make some argument that taking the time to research, purchase, maintain, etc., equipment, takes away from their time of honing their skills as a DP, but again I'd say that's not the case, as doing all of those things, actually will increase their technical knowledge of the equipment. Even if a DP is making $250k per year in labor, I think they'd be hesitant to spend $5k of their own money to rent a camera and lens package for a few days in order to do some tests of their own. Always nice to bill those rentals to a production, but you can't quite do that if there is no current production to bill it to and you're wanting to do tests outside of an upcoming production. The fact that you can't ever do a personal project, which in my experience is a great way to test and improve your skills as a DP compared to client based projects which have lots of guidelines and restrictions (such as what you wrote about on The Great), but again, most DPs making $250k per year in labor don't want to spend $20k in rental fees on various personal projects throughout the year because $20k is still a good sum of money. So, having your own equipment which you can access by simply walking 20 feet to your equipment room or whereever you store it has certain advantages over having to always rent or rely on what the production happens to provide you. There's also something to be said for becoming particularly familiar with gear which is more difficult to do when you don't own it and are constantly using different gear for the first time on a variety of shoots.

I did not understand your disdain in the other topic regarding an owner/op who would rather work on another show which wanted to rent their equipment. I mean, if your show was the better show, with better talent, writing, stars, etc., then I could understand you having disdain if they wanted to work on a crap show just so they could make a little more money. On the other hand, if the other show was equal to yours (which if you had no knowledge of the other show, would be equal as far as your knowledge goes), then who in their right mind would choose the lesser paycheck show (your show which won't rent their gear) if the other show will pay more and is just as good of a show? And then you feel disdain toward them for making a completely rational and sane decision? Perhaps I misread what you meant.

If Roger makes $220K/Y as an equipment rental owner, he probably took a huge pay cut from an anesthesiologist gig that in a major city can easily pay double that amount. But that's his choice to do what he does.

Consider an anesthesiologist who makes $300k per year after expenses (malpractice insurance, etc.,), works crazy long hours, and over a 30 year career, makes nine million dollars. LensRentals could liquidate all it's property and have way more than nine million dollars, not to mention the 13 million per year they've been making. Roger said in the article that the $220k per year was not the most he could make out of the 13 million dollar revenue, but the salary he chose and that he had no desire to make more. He also specifically said that was about the same income he had been making as an anesthesiologist after expenses (such as malpractice insurance). He is based in Memphis which is not as large or rich as some other cities.

 

[John Brawley]

Unlike most local rental houses, LensRentals has a significantly larger stock of duplicates and I would not be surprised if they owned over 30 million of equipment. And you're trying to say that this guy who owns 30 million dollars of assets is a small time fish who makes less money than an average DP at $60k per year?

I am just saying that I would never rent gear from a place that I couldn't do a regular prep on. Why would you trust them to give you all that you need.

Even if I was doing a one day shoot. Which is what I just did in Atlanta.

I just did a "small" job with Keslow. Myself, a first AC, a Ssecond AC and a gaffer / grip.

I did about 6 hours of prep at Keslow getting the package together and swapping out cables that weren't right, things that didn't work for things that did. We needed some additional items that we didn’t plan for.

You can’t add things to a job like that when you’re renting from Lensrentals. You order it and prey that it’s all in the box and it all fits together ? Anyone that knows anything knows that will never happen.

Makes sense if you’re retting a set of lenses in some situations.

Doesn’t make sense if you’re renting a camera.

Lenses in a box is one thing, but once you start doing a whole camera package it gets a lot more complex.

I don't see how a nationwide company that rents boxes will ever appeal to those that do any kind prep. You’d have to pay to have the gear shipped early to prep on it. And then allow time to add extra things ?

Keslow didn’t charge me for prep. Or post. They charged me one day, though I spent the better part of a day prepping and then returning later on the third day.

I don't understand why you're fixated by how much money you think these guys are worth.

I think they'd be hesitant to spend $5k of their own money to rent a camera and lens package for a few days in order to do some tests of their own. Always nice to bill those rentals to a production, but you can't quite do that if there is no current production to bill it to and you're wanting to do tests outside of an upcoming production. The fact that you can't ever do a personal project, which in my experience is a great way to test and improve your skills as a DP compared to client based projects which have lots of guidelines and restrictions (such as what you wrote about on The Great),

I do personal projects all the time. And I have a great relationship with many rental companies. I can ring the managers and say, hey I have a "love" job, can you help me out and guess what...they always do.

If I wanted to go test a bunch of lenses so I could write a blog post, I could almost guarantee I'd be able to do that and get what I asked for simply BECAUSE I have built a relationship with rental companies instead of trying to compete with them. That's how it works. They will generally support you with what you ask for, because they know you're going to come back and rent from them when you have paying jobs.

I did not understand your disdain in the other topic regarding an owner/op who would rather work on another show which wanted to rent their equipment. I mean, if your show was the better show, with better talent, writing, stars, etc., then I could understand you having disdain if they wanted to work on a crap show just so they could make a little more money. On the other hand, if the other show was equal to yours (which if you had no knowledge of the other show, would be equal as far as your knowledge goes), then who in their right mind would choose the lesser paycheck show (your show which won't rent their gear) if the other show will pay more and is just as good of a show? And then you feel disdain toward them for making a completely rational and sane decision? Perhaps I misread what you meant.

I think you care about money as much as you care about the work you’re doing.

The crew member in question didn’t ask me the right questions. There are other ways to further one’s career than just chasing money for equipment rental. And THAT is my point.

Once you start owning gear it becomes a vicious cycle of trying to rent your gear out. You’re making choices about work that aren’t based on creative decisions, but simply trying to rent your gear. We never got far enough along in the conversation to talk about my plans for the person in that role to be the second unit DP. Typically, on a show the second unit DP would then become next in line if I don’t return the next season or, if I fell sick etc. Maybe he didn’t care, because he sure didn’t give me a chance to talk about it. It was just mercenary. Maybe that’s how you roll, but I’m not here to earn a paycheck or retire with 9 million.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

I am just saying that I would never rent gear from a place that I couldn't do a regular prep on. Why would you trust them to give you all that you need.

Even if I was doing a one day shoot. Which is what I just did in Atlanta.

I just did a "small" job with Keslow. Myself, a first AC, a Ssecond AC and a gaffer / grip.

I did about 6 hours of prep at Keslow getting the package together and swapping out cables that weren't right, things that didn't work for things that did. We needed some additional items that we didn’t plan for.

You can’t add things to a job like that when you’re renting from Lensrentals. You order it and prey that it’s all in the box and it all fits together ? Anyone that knows anything knows that will never happen.

Makes sense if you’re retting a set of lenses in some situations.

Doesn’t make sense if you’re renting a camera.

Lenses in a box is one thing, but once you start doing a whole camera package it gets a lot more complex.

I don't see how a nationwide company that rents boxes will ever appeal to those that do any kind prep. You’d have to pay to have the gear shipped early to prep on it. And then allow time to add extra things ?

Keslow didn’t charge me for prep. Or post. They charged me one day, though I spent the better part of a day prepping and then returning later on the third day.

I don't understand why you're fixated by how much money you think these guys are worth.

Well that's how you work. Clearly enough other people don't work that way such that LensRentals has become highly successful. You can't argue with success. Not every shoot is complex enough that it needs camera prep. Many shoot with a bare-bones camera. Not every production is a big movie or TV show. Different rental companies cater to different types of clients. Always best when on DVXUser to say things like, "This is how I work, but I understand others may work differently."

Anyway, to reiterate my one and only point, legit rental company owners make more money on average than DPs do on average. That's all.


I could perhaps succeed if I started a rental company as I have a decent amount of equipment now to begin with, but I don't think I would enjoy it, so I'm staying with DPing until I get in a car accident, break my legs, and run a rental house from a wheel chair.

 

[ahalpert]

Keep going, Eric and John! I've got my popcorn ready now. Jk

Personally, I enjoy shooting and not managing rental gear. Buying a camera is about the economics and dynamics of being an owner-operator (just like truckers). Seems like well-worn ground to me. I wager most dvxusers are owner/ops.

The original question that spawned this discussion was Andree asking me if I cared about Sony's next release since I own Canon gear. Funny where it's taken us

 

[Eric Coughlin]

As far as equipment, it sounds like you're perhaps agreeing that there can be more money in doing equipment rental in addition to labor, but that chasing equipment rental can negatively affect the pursuit of art.

In my particular case, since my clients don't rent equipment for me and want me with mine, the best equipment I can get access to (since the local rental companies won't throw free or 95% off gear to me) is the equipment I own. So if I want to work with better equipment, I need to buy it. And how do I afford better equipment? By improving my work so I can get higher end clients who will pay for the better equipment.

I think aside from artistic passion, there's also a passion in being able to work with the best technical tools possible. I look at say an Alexa Mini LF with Arri Signature Primes, and salivate at them with passion. And I know in order to be able to use and afford such equipment, I need to work hard for it. It's not just so I can drive a nicer car or own a nicer house, but to also fill that passion for equipment which I enjoy, as well as the better results I can get with that equipment. There's nothing wrong with having technical passion in addition to artistic passion. There's also nothing wrong with liking money so you can improve your material lifestyle.

That said, to say this is not also to get a paycheck would seem short sighted. We all need to make at least a basic living, so can't afford to just do this all for free indefinitely. Most people like money. Money plays a role in most business decisions. I'm sure many of the low budget movie producers who have offered me low paying DP jobs which I turned down so I could do better paying corporate work thought I did not have a passion for the art. Well, not really true. I did not have a passion for their project. It was probably crap anyway. Most super low budget projects are. Meanwhile, I'll then go off and self produce my own art passion project since I do also care about the artistic side of it. I appreciate the money, but it's not all about that.

I don't know where I'm going with this and I need to drive six hours to a job for Discover now since Discovery definitely is not relying on just self shot iPhone videos.

 

[Guest]

When i was studying painting in Uni, we classmates used to go to the art store and oggle over brushes. Some we just couldn’t justify at the time, but the bristles/hair on some of them were so well crafted. And then the colours if the paints! Goodness we wanted them all. We weren’t chastised the same way camera people are, but the passion for fine tools was the same.

 

[dc4040]

Anyway, to reiterate my one and only point, legit rental company owners make more money on average than DPs do on average. That's all.

Reminds me of a discussion of the gold rush in California ... thousands digging and sluicing for nuggets ... and those who were most successful were the mercantiles ... who loaned the equipment ... provided the capital ... and the food. I think this has always been the case ... rare instances where popularity or seredipity led to one scaling the steep difficult road to success ... whether by personal acumen, relationships or charisma ... but usually those who underwrite the venture are closer to the source of capital, profit and success.

Risk and reward ... obviously Roger felt passsionately enough about his venture to risk his 401K and future for the potential reward.

He found a disparity in the market ... need vs availability and has fulfilled that need ... and built a reputation for honesty and fair value.
Hard to find fault with that business ethic.

A bit off topic ... but perhaps tangentially cogent ... I used to fly ... rented from a respected company in the central valley in California ... until the day that I experienced a complete electrical failure ... bad generator ... in marginal VFR conditions. Limped back to the airport with limited range communications with airplanes close to me as only my dying battery allowed marginal electrical power. Landed by following close to another plane in very limited sight distance ... haze and smog. When I approached the landing ... the tower had scrambled all the fire trucks and were ready to watch me crater ... catch fire or worse ... as they had limited understanding of how severe my plane was affected.

I realized that morning that ownership ... even if it entailed something less than the best ... could be of great advantage as you know the strengths and weakness of each piece of equipment you rely upon. Especially when you are solo without a large well-fed contingent
of staff. End of rant ....

Those of us who struggle to be the point man, solo operator and gran fromage ... on small scale will have success ... but not at the level of the mercantile. But the freedom to choose your project ... negotiate your terms and then satisfy your clients brings great satisfaction and reward.

Thankfully in this country there has been room for both models to succeed ... May that persist in the future.

 

[ahalpert]

Surely the difference between what Eric and John are saying is in that Eric is shooting OMB non-fiction stuff and John is shooting fully-crewed scripted narrative.

2 completely different economic and Production paradigms!

 

[Eric Coughlin]

I film around 10 fiction films per year, and do most or all of them for free because unlike John who mostly does fiction work for pay, I care about the art. Heck, John even does projects for the man with the man telling him what camera and lenses to use. I only do narrative projects where I get to choose all the equipment to use. Clearly he is a money chaser. ;-)

Most of my narrative work is crewed, around 40% of my nonnarrative work is one man band. My shoot tomorrow is me and a sound guy, my shoot a couple days ago was a political ad with a crew of about 12, and on Tuesday I am one-man banding.

 

[ahalpert]

And for the political ad, you used all your own gear? That seems like a good case there for renting something specific if need be (naturally, depending on the content of the ad).

I'm guessing that the features you shoot for free are very low-budget, which is why you shoot for free and use your own gear, no? If it was a fully budgeted project, wouldn't you be open to shooting anamorphic or LF or something else you don't have?

Out of curiosity, what does your filter package look like? Do you rent any or do you have all you generally need?

 

[Eric Coughlin]

The night before the political ad shoot the producer asked me if I would rather have a grip truck added in place of an AC. I said I would rather have the grip truck, because an AC is rather useless when using a simple camera set up such as a stripped down C300 I was using and when not needing to pull focus. I knew we were filming outside but did not know exactly what the location would look like or where we would be filming. I figured if we were not in a shaded area, a 12 x 12 overhead could be useful, or using an 8 x 8 for bounce. We ended up filming under a large shaded tree, so the overhead and bounce were both useless. I used my Litepanel Astra with a battery to add some key light for the stand up interview line delivery, which were not diffused because defusion would cut down their brightness too much and make them useless. I had several light stands in my SUV, but chose to use the grip van’s C-stands in part just so that we actually used something out of the grip van. And that was all we used from it, two C-stands. In an ideal world I may have wanted an M18 or 4K HMI shooting through an 8 x 8 or 12 x 12, powered by a generator since there was no power at the location. But I gathered those items were not in the budget.

I gave them the option of my Arri for the shoot and they chose my lower budget C300 with L-series lenses instead of my higher-priced cinema lenses so clearly their budget wasn’t unlimited even though it was a pretty decent size crew.

I was mostly talking short films. I did shoot a feature a couple years ago which was a paid job. We did rent some supplemental gear that I did not have. Most of the shorts I do I self fund, spending from $100 to $1500 to fund them. Others I do for friends for free. As I said elsewhere, $1500 can get you a pretty decent product when you have free quality equipment to work with and all of your cast and crew are free.

I don’t own a filter set. It’s on my list of things to buy, but it’s never really been that important to me.. A polarizer would certainly be useful, and I’m probably past due for getting one. My corporate clients never really ask for filters, and since that’s my bread-and-butter, buying a set for my narrative work has been lower priority. Outside of polarizers, things like promist filters, I’m not really a fan of. To give the cliché name drop, Deakins is not a fan of filters as well.. And all my cameras have internal ND’s which have been sufficient for me, particularly since I’m not religious with native ISOs so I can adjust it accordingly if the built in ND’s do not get me exactly where I want.

What I typically tell clients if they want to use equipment that is not my own, is that my rate is the same with or without my equipment. So if they have so much budget they can afford to rent better equipment than what I own, and they can afford to pay my normal starting rate with gear ($2500) as my labor rate, then I would be game to work on the project. That said, I have yet to find a client willing to pay that rate and offer better equipment than what I own.

I do on rare occasions get clients who have similar or inferior equipment to mine, but also have the budget to pay a good labor rate, such that I end up working on their project. In one case the client provided their own Amira to save on my additional Amira rental rate, while paying my starting rate of $2500, since my rate with the Amira would be $4000. So they saved $1500 by providing their own Amira. I also provided them some lighting equipment and other odds and ends.

Corporate jobs are rarely “opportunities.” it’s not like Steven Spielberg or anybody of actual importance is hiring me for these shoots which will lead to amazing future opportunities. They are paychecks. And if I’m offered a labor only paycheck when I have other opportunities for labor plus equipment rental paychecks, then I will take the latter and refuse the first. If a legit name director of a feature contacted me and wanted me to use their equipment such that I would not make that much income on their shoot, then I would consider it. Then again, if they were a name director, they would have more budget for labor rate. But none of the actual name directors are contacting me, because in the narrative world I’m at the low end. The last two features I DPed were around $200,000 budgets. At that budget level, most of the movies turn out to be crap, though I can hopefully have fun trying to make it look good. In the corporate and documentary world, I’m at the high end.

One of the problems with the narrative world is that there tends to be a lot of ego and politics, which is not really present in the corporate world. And since I never graduated from ass-kissing school, and tend to tell things how they are, bluntly, that doesn’t always bode well for me to get a narrative job.. That’s one nice thing about me self funding my film projects, I don’t have to deal with that ego or politics as I have full control of the projects, while I can still make good money off of the corporate jobs.

 

[ahalpert]

Copy that. All makes sense.

The only thing I disagree with is the use of filtration. I dont know/care what Deakins does, but filters are such an easy way to create various moods and atmospheres, beautify the talent, etc. The reason I asked if you rent them was just because they're cheap but there are so many options. For non-fiction I usually use black satin as it's very subtle but glosses things a bit. But in narrative there are so many ways to go. Of course, if you want a sharp, clean look then don't use a filter. But me like pretty.

I agree re: ego and politics in the narrative world. Probably due to fighting to maintain power within a competitive and unstable hierarchy. Dunno. Corporate world has its own politics, but probably not between filmmakers eh.

 

[DLD]

The announcement is rumored to be July, 2nd but the supply will be low due to the pandemic.

Which reminds me of an old Henny Youngman joke, "I went to a doctor. I said, "Doc, I don't feel well". So he put his hand on my wallet and said, "Cough".

 

[reem12]

Has it been any footage released of this camera yet? I'm very anxious to see what the quality and texture of this new canon.